Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

We use SCCM to access user data.

Basically, my requirement was to get the data from wherever it was available within the organization. SCCM helped identify how many computers we had, what software was loaded on it, what different types of data were available, and so on. It helped us a lot when it came to extracting the data.

It uses detailed descriptions of the workstations, and that is good for me.

I think SCCM can improve whatever details they shared with the integration partner. There was a lot of junk software and data. There should be flexibility to allow us to extract the data we require. In other words, the flexibility of accepting the specific data that we are looking for.

I want the system to provide some dependency relations. For example, you have a laptop, and you start working on it. If I can be informed that you're using the laptop at work, other machines that are dependent on this laptop will be able to provide that dependency relationship. I would like to see the relationship between different machines.

For a small-scale industry, the storage capacity is good. However, the performance and storage capacity could be better.

I have been using SCCM for a while as part of an integration project.

We are running almost 5,000 machines, and it was working fine from a performance perspective. 

Technical support is good.

The initial setup was straightforward and took us about a week to deploy this solution. The strategy was simple. We just had to do it in the same plugin, and we actually did learn on the job each day.

We used an integrator, and we still use them regularly or even daily. We might use them for other integrations as well.

I would tell potential users that SCCM is a good solution if their focus is on the number of computers and laptops they have in the company.

I used it for the first time, and it was good. But users should know what kind of databases they are using and if the integration has sufficient rights to access that data.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SCCM a seven.

In most cases, it is used by us to deploy software or manage configurations of certain applications.

We are pushing the WSUS updates through it and getting the normal systems grouping. 

You can do your software package through it and you can create and run scripts.

The database should be made to be more stable and robust, but not so much the configuration.

I am not sure if it is just bad administration and maintenance, but it fails quite a lot.

For me, it's the database, or maybe it's the maintenance overhead. It could be that it requires a lot of maintenance. If you don't maintain it, things could go wrong, this is my assumption.

We have been using this solution for a couple of months.

We are using the latest version.

It is not always stable. When it works it works, but It has a very sensitive database and it almost always crashes when we use it, especially if you don't take care of it.

I can't really say that the scalability is good or bad because I haven't had to do much of it.

I have never used any other similar product.

It is easy to install and quick to deploy.

We have admins to maintain this solution.

We didn't really evaluate other products.

We are more of a Microsoft house. It works out better to use these products.

As I have not used any other product, I can't say that I would or wouldn't recommend SCCM. If there is anything better, I would like to know.

It works, but the database fails almost every time. I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.

We are using Microsoft SCCM as the deployment platform for our environment to deploy laptops and PCs for the help desk technicians. We also use it to deploy applications and servers and provide some reports to the organization about what is currently deployed. We are using its latest version.

We do not have a big IT department, so it solves a major part of our problems and makes it easier to deploy applications, servers, PCs, etc.

It does the job and meets our needs. With everybody working remotely these days, we are using this solution to deploy everything. The deployment of PCs is easy.

It should provide the ability to remotely connect to mobile devices. There are some solutions that are doing that, but with Microsoft Intune, the only way to remotely connect to devices outside the organization and mobile devices is by using TeamViewer. It is pretty strange for a big company like Microsoft to not have something for that.

It is stable. When the applications are set up correctly, we didn't face any major problems. Most of the problems are related to DNS and other things that are outside of SCCM. They are not related to SCCM.

Currently, our business is really stable, and there is no need to increase the devices in our organization. We have six technicians who are using it currently.

We are not using any tech support outside our organization. We are handling it internally.

I have used some solutions in the past, but in our organization, there was no centralized management application before SCCM.

It is not hard to deploy and manage, but you need some knowledge of what you want to do. SCCM is strictly based on the specific configuration of the network. Therefore, you need to know the network configuration and how to use Microsoft Active Directory. If you have made a bad choice at the beginning, it will be hard to roll back and redeploy it. It works well when the environment is well configured. It doesn't really work well when the corporate network is not as good as it should be.

Its price is okay because it is part of our licensing.

I would recommend having someone to help with the deployment because the success of its deployment depends on the experience of the people who are deploying it. If you don't have enough experienced people in the internal IT department, it would be helpful to have a consultant from outside the organization to assist you.

I would rate SCCM an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for patch management.

The solution may be one of the top products from a management standpoint. It's excellent.

The solution has a very good set of features.

Its capabilities are quite robust.

Sometimes the time it takes to find the fault is a bit too long. The resolution time needs to be shortened quite a bit. There are just some analysis errors that need to be cleared up quicker in general. Otherwise, data blocks and the firewall can be affected unnecessarily.

The analysis is something that can be integrated. Their report analysis can be improved a little bit due to the fact that most of the time complaints policies are saved by the admins. It's something that we need to look into and search for. It would be nice if there was just a cohesive report of what was saved, etc. 

I've been working with the solution for about two and a half years at this point.

The stability is very good. We don't have any issues with it. It's very reliable. I'd give it five stars.

The solution is scalable. We do have options to integrate other products as well. You want to combine your MDM solution with SCCM, for example. Scalability is something I would give them five stars for.

As admins, we do have rules for distributing. Basically, to manage inventory on all those steps. In our current organization, we are connected to approximately 300 million servers.

We didn't previously use a different solution. Previous to initiating the use of SCCM, everything was pretty much a manual process.

The initial setup is not complex. I believe it is very straightforward. You can choose to do it manually or you can do it via an automation feature that is available to push everything for you. 

Depending upon how big your organization is, how the sites are spread across mainly on physical entities, on logical entities, the installation and the detection will not take much time. In most cases you can have it configured in five to ten minutes in order to detect once the reporting gets updated. That said, if there are different geographical locations, the entire process can take a day or so. 

I've had to reach out to technical support in the past and I'm satisfied with their level of service. They are very knowledgeable and responsive.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with SCCM.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We've been mostly satisfied with it as a product.

It's mainly end-point management, right imaging, patching,and third-party application.

There is a faster time to rollout. If we get a new PC, they can get in there and be ready to be productive right away, so I would say that would be the biggest improvement.

They have built-in Windows 10 servicing model, and all that, so it makes it easier to bring in upgrades.

Troubleshooting in general needs improvement. There's just a ton of logs to go through, and so finding the error log that corresponds with that you're doing can sometimes be difficult.

One quarter of our company still uses BigFix, and we are currently trying to determine whether we should switch everyone to SCCM.

It is straightforward. I am currently setting up a new version, and it is easy because we have the existing infrastructure.

Do your research, make sure you know what you're getting into with it, and make sure that it fits your needs.

Overall, I think it's fine. It's pretty much in-line because there are ways to offset it with the Office 365 licensing.

They are very aggressive with the feature steps that they're adding right, so every 6 months they come out with a bunch of new features, so I like that.

We use this solution because we need to manage patching and system provisioning.

This solution helps us by automating the patching of our system. We are able to standardize our Windows configuration, and models are supported through imaging.

The most valuable features of this solution are:

• Imaging - standardized Windows builds
• Software deployment - deploying updates and automating the installation of software
• Patch deployment - increased security
• Reporting - better view of our environment for decision making

This solution should be simpler, and more consistent across modules/sections.

Reporting and collection queries should be made easier to do.

We primarily use the solution for client and server deployments, and software deployments, as well as software metering.

The entire solution, from end to end is excellent. It's doing essential work for us at our company.

The initial setup is straightforward and not too complicated.

I can't think of any features that are lacking in the solution. It's quite complete, and a rather standard setup.

If you want the best support, you need to pay for it. Otherwise, you may get less technical help.

We've been using the solution since its inception. It's been maybe ten years or more at this point.

The solution is very stable. It's reliable. You don't have to work about bugs or glitches. There aren't any crashes. It doesn't freeze.

The solution is very scalable. If an organization needs to scale up, the can do so easily using this product.

Right now, we have about 4,000 users on the solution.

We have Microsoft Premier Support.

With Microsoft Premier Support, you get what you pay for. There's Third Tier Support that you pay for. If you pay for that, you get excellent support, and if you don't pay for that, then you get the less experienced staff. There are products where we do have Third Tier Support, and there are products that are not so mission-critical, where we don't pay that much.

At Microsoft, if we wanted to, we can get the level of that kind of super support, super fast. It's not that they leave a void open that we would like more. If we want more, faster, we can pay for it.

If the company did use a different solution, that would have been about 15 years ago and before my time. I couldn't say what it might have been. Right now we're System Center 2012, before that it was 2007. Then before that was 2003, and then 2004. Before, the product was called SMS, so it's been around for a while. The previous product might have been a solution called Altaris. Again, that's about at least 15 years ago.

The initial setup, for the most part, is not complex. It depends on the company's individual setup, however, it's quite straightforward if you know what you are doing.

Deployment typically takes about three months.

You only need about four staff members for deployment and maintenance. They are all systems specialists and engineers.

We used to use sellers or consultants. However, we are moving away from that and attempting to implement the solution ourselves internally. We want to have the knowledge completely in-house.

We have a basic enterprise agreement with Microsoft which isn't cheap, per se.

I can't get into the exact cost structure.

The question of pricing is a bit relative. The enterprise-level that we use is always a negotiation. I don't want to use the word monopoly, however, there's no alternative enterprise vendor that covers all bases, from server storage and backup and everything else in between. Pricing is just a matter of negotiation every time the contract renewal period comes up.

Right now we are starting a POC for Azure and Office 365. The idea is that it depends on the government and if data privacy and compliance rules allow any change. If we can use Azure's public cloud, and Office 365, then the usage utility of the on-prem requirements would go down. 

Microsoft Cloud has integration with Intune, which is the cloud version of SCCM in the center. As far as I can see, there is good integration.

We're a Microsoft customer.

It's a very good product. The basic question is the size of the company itself that may want to implement the solution. the point is if you're big enough to afford an enterprise agreement, with Microsoft, then I would highly recommend it. It's a suite of products. If you're a small to medium business, which does not have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, I would recommend that you look around for third party products. Simply from a cost perspective, you might be better off, but if you have the money and the size and the revenue, then definitely, Microsoft is the way to go, because it includes everything.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use it for deployment purposes, for all managing all the devices and patching. It has performed very well.

The benefits of SCCM is that in the deployment, we can deploy one like machine with it without an alias, it also gets the management capability of all devices that are dispatched or not.

It deploys all the bare metals using PXE and it gathers all of the information of the device using a discovery, whatever it is in the domain and we can schedule the deployment according to our need. It's a flexible tool. 

It has many features. It generates our reports as well, provides compliance reports, monitors the dashboard and now it has the Cloud Management Gateway. It's awesome! 

In addition, there are improvements. There are new features like App-V and Core Management. The Core Management allows us to move to the cloud as well as with our own premises infrastructure. It can manage the Internet Appliance without exposing the infrastructure to the cloud.

Sometimes it does not update the log files. It gives an error code, rather than giving the actual problem.

The stability is good. 

The scalability is good.

We only use SCCM and MDT. I really do not have experience with anything else.

The setup was complex and I faced a lot of problems initially because I was new to the solution.

If you need only deployment purposes, and no management capability, then use MDT also. And if you want to deploy many devices and manage those devices, then go for SCCM.